Saturday, March 12, 2016

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.

Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”

The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write,
“among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as
attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with
13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared
to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was
seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier toattack.

Ironically, as Nate pointed out, this means that female leaders are more strongly correlated with warfare than religion. And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

First comment on the article:It could just be because the men around them and their countries won't accept leadership by women and so seek to overthrow them triggering wars in response by the women to protect their position....

Quite a few queens had to fight off usurpation attempts. This was especially likely if the queen was the first woman to rule her country in centuries. For example, Matilda, Isabella of Castile, and Maria Theresa.

And sometimes, the queen was a usurper. For example, Catherine the Great. (Wikipedia notes that "she made up her mind when she came to Russia to do whatever was necessary, and to profess to believe whatever was required of her, to become qualified to wear the crown.")

Let me get this straight. Are you, or are you not, married. While it's nice when academics, possibly, stumble onto something... who needs it. Just marry, or even be with a woman for a long time. War... huh... good God y'all.

I would guess that there would have been more war, there simply wasn't enough coin to start, or return on investment beyond a certain point. Now... it would be interesting to see when those decisions were made, in line with their cycle. Oh yes, it would.

It's been theorized that the American mind set has always regretted the war of independence and has been seeking a replacement monarchy ever since. Think the Kennedy dynasty, the Bush ..., the Clinton ..., the Kardashian dynasty.

It could be argued that Hillary, Queen Clinton, has orchestrated the mother of all wars in the Syrian conflict. One from which there is no extrication, no way out, no dignified finish. ISIS< to ISIL to Hillary's legacy in bodybags and the fall of Europe?

With female secretaries of state the count in body bags is impressive. Queens of politics indeed.

My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence.

"And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war."

Not for a feminist. Clearly the increased likelihood of war is a result of patriarchal aggression directed at strong wymyn Queens by rival male rulers. Wymyn were perceived to be threatening because of their intrinsically amazing wymyn skills and had to be deposed at any cost. So of course there were more wars, because men with small penises were threatened.

Aeoli Pera wrote:My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence.

I would wonder if Queens were more likely to plunge their nations into morass wars where there is no real objective or end point?

Also, I think as a quick and dirty rule of thumb anyone who wants the authority to propose wars should have been punched in the face at some point in their lives by someone who really doesn't like them. Just a thought.

Not that you probably care, Vox, but Matt Edwards defecating all over your comments, and those responding to him, have made me stop reading comments here. Too bad, as you tend to have some of the best.

And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

While I agree with the notion that queens are in no way better than kings and are probably more warlike (women generally being sheltered from violence therefore not knowing its price), the causal relationship doesn't always have to work like that - could be the other side deciding to go to war. I.e. Maria Theresa's war of succession, where everybody and their dog declared war against her pretty much because she was a woman.

Simon Schama's book on the French Revolution makes much the same argument. That Louis XVI was willing to solve the crisis with a constitutional monarchy, but Marie Antoinette would have no part of it....and Louis wouldn't shut her down.

Women in power can become, if not always, a danger to their nation and inflict serious long term damage within, to its allies, for reasons that do not abide by the law or tradition. Have not queens acted above the law?

It's like WRE in religion, they do not belong in, we mostly do not belong in positions of leadership within the church or gov't.

Women's suffrage along with multiculti has failed, thanks again baby doomers and the foolish few generations before boomers.

You could not stand up to the women due to your weakness and now your family is destined for hard times.

Then again a nation often suffers under the dysleadership according to their own decline and decadence, its no surprise that Queens caused more bloodshed than religion. (TIA.)

I am flitting between a few theories here (with the female disconnect from loss of life as an amplifier). Since it is the married reigning monarchs that started wars, there's:

1) Show of "strength". Women think being able to fight makes a woman strong. VD's favorite fantasy trope is a great example of this. A queen would be more susceptible to wanting to prove she's as good as a man.

2) Advisors manipulating queens by preying on insecurity. Women like security and in the absence of a strong male, are more likely to use violence to secure it if they feel threatened.

3) The same as 2 without the help of advisors.

Also, its kind of annoying to me that these (married) women chose foreign affairs over domestic. Their presentation to the world as THE RULER was vanity on full display. The roles should have been reversed.

To be honest I was surprised when you started mentioning the encyclopedia of wars that patterns like this would be showing up in blog posts. I've long had a theory that Queens would be associated with war based on my observations of female cops and female bosses in general.

It's interesting that the idea a woman as ruler would be more "motherly" and less likely to war, sounds very sexist. It also ignores some rather blood thirsty rulers like, Queen Victoria, she stood by and watched as millions of Irish starved as food was removed at gun point (200,000 total troops were dedicated to the suppression of Ireland, 100,000 being deployed there at a time). Indira Ghandi turned the worlds largest democracy into a fascist state. Ranavalona reduced the population of Madagascar by 50%. Anyone whose ever seen girls fight knows they don't fight fair.

Women also support expanding bureaucracy and governmental reach. The nanny state is alive and well in Canada and political correctness means they are able to act without criticism (or else you're branded a muhsodginist!).

So they may not actually engage in out and out war in modern times, but their state-backed force is always increasing.

Female cops Nate, don't get me started. Served 8 years with them. Their resort to violence was instantThey would freak out and suddenly the male partner (me) would have to diffuse or handle the confrontation. It is if they had no middle speed.

The females born into the role are by no means the only queens who like wars. The reserachers should have factored in the various Repuke dancing monkeys, mandarinas and littlest chickenhawks along with the the pedigreed queens and their results would have been even more lopsided. There are way too many queens at present for there to be any chance of peace, not to mention the Lizard Queen.

People have preconceived the idea that countries run by women go to war less? I don't have that preconception? Who are these people? Have they ever met a woman? Females are less violent than men, yes, but so what? It's not like they're gonna be on the front lines. Queen Whatever sending men into battle is like your girlfriend saying "Aren't you going to do anything?" after a rude guy bumps into her at the bar.

Queens have always been more bloodthirsty, because they really don't care about men.

Look at what Queen Elizabeth did to the sailors who defeated the Spanish Armada and saved England: She killed off about half of them, because she didn't want to pay them! (She confined them to their ships where many starved to death or caught disease and died.)

Aeoli Pera wrote:My first guess is that, although male and female rulers tend to be roughly equal in psychopathy, women are more likely to instigate violence because they have no concrete understanding of the costs of violence

Any single mom that pimped out her kid to her boyfriend knows the costs, but knows the costs will not be personally suffered. If women actually had empathy as claimed single moms would apologize for attacking my wallet.

as a quick and dirty rule of thumb anyone who wants the authority to propose wars should have been punched in the face at some point

One female I mentioned this to (because she was implying that women wouldn't cause as much violence if they were in charge) asked for an example. I said Queen Elizabeth. She said Queen Elizabeth was a product of "the system." I guess that excuses her for having her cousin killed. I guess "the system" means patriarchy.

@8 Discard: it's a status thing, too. In the US, 'Defense' is a big, worldwide stick that takes up a yuge chunk of the Fed.gov budget. In Slovenia, 'Defense' is probably a low-status political sinecure, like Transportation or Interior is here. So, why not give it to some juinor coalition hack with two X chromosomes?